Sabella
Fugue State AudioI see some musicians going all "Metallica vs. Napster" about the Anna's Archive thing, and I feel the need to remind folks that corporations and the music industry have done more to ruin things for us than piracy ever could.
Eric Goodwin@fstateaudio @brian_gettler I hope someday to be cool enough that my kid (currently 9yo) would wear this shirt I saved from 20 years ago!
@auxonic nice, that would surely be a sign that you did something right. :)
Daniel Hinojosa 
@fstateaudio LOL. I love Alternative Tentacles.
Kevin RussellBillionaires are stolen money.
Billionaires are stolen money.
Billionaires are stolen money.
Billionaires are stolen money.
Musicians are victims of billionaires.
Jonathan HendryHow does Anna's Archive's Spotify swipe help the victims?
@jonhendry @kevinrns the users (listeners), especially the ones paying Spotify (not that they're the only culprits) to have their data collected and sold, are victims too. Considering that some of those profits are then being used to invest in AI weapons research, that could become even more the case in the future.
So take the place of Spotify as the organization screwing the musicians?
@jonhendry @kevinrns I refer you back to my initial post.
So now you're exploiting musicians just like Spotify.
Karl Heinz Häsliprinz@jonhendry @fstateaudio @kevinrns ...safe 10 usd a month, give tgose 10 to a musician, problem solved.
I'm making clear who are players on stage not the script, nor epilogue.
Fabio G.Anything that weakens the billionaires' bargaining position can only help the exploited.
@magitweeter @kevinrns @fstateaudio
Sad leftist bravado
@jonhendry ... You're right. I'm sorry i said anything.
Toniours
Joris Meys@magitweeter
Meta's AI was largely trained on Anna's Archive data. They also offer their collection for AI training in exchange of large sums of money and/or data, and I don't know how I feel about that...
@JorisMeys @magitweeter @jonhendry @fstateaudio
I just don't feel sorry for sporify
@kevinrns
Me neither, don't worry. The sooner they get destroyed, the better.
Me neither, don't worry. The sooner they get destroyed, the better.
HowToPhil@fstateaudio I keep the DRM turned off on my Amazon ebook listings (for all my pen names) because I know the people who were going to pay were going to pay even if they could download it for free, and those that do download it... Well, they might buy a story later.
gussetingR.I.P. Steve Albini.
Never Forget.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music
avatastic 
@fstateaudio "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon (unverified (by me))
Kay Ohtie@fstateaudio Wait are some artists/etc just now discovering the joy that is Anna's Archive? Fuck.
Hope it can stick around, it's been invaluable to me
Caden@KayOhtie @fstateaudio Anna's Archive quite literally got me through college. There's no way I could've afforded all those textbooks
The Doctor@tarix29 @KayOhtie @fstateaudio If it had been around when I was in undergrad I could have never used my credit card to buy textbooks. A grand or two a semester really adds up.
Patrick Georgi@KayOhtie @fstateaudio yup, I fear that by taking on the music industry like this, Anna has painted a large target on her back.
canleaf08 ⌘ ✅加拿大葉子@fstateaudio “Piratez-moi”-Jean Michel Jarre when his album “Musique pour Supermarchés” was broadcasted.
Jordi (Potential Jackassery)Spotify: hoisted upon their own petard, not self-aware enough to have shame.
Joel@fstateaudio feels like the Streisand effort. Only real outcome is more people hear about Anna’s.
Chris Carr@fstateaudio “Ruin things for us”
Who is “us”?
Who is “us”?
@carrchr I would say pretty much anyone that isn't an executive at one of the corporations in question, but I was thinking mostly of my fellow musicians and enjoyers of music when I wrote it.
YanK l'Innommé@fstateaudio The core idea endlessly pushed by the industry was simple:
1 pirated file = 1 lost sale
But empirical research does not support this equation.
A large share of illegal downloads concern works that would not have been purchased anyway (price, availability, simple curiosity).
Piracy often acts as sampling: people discover, test, and later buy (concert tickets, merchandise, physical editions, future releases).
In short: piracy mostly competes with marketing, not with creation itself.
@fstateaudio. Several studies (Europe, Canada...) consistently show the same pattern:
Piracy increases visibility for lesser-known artists.
It promotes cultural diversity, whereas major-label strategies and algorithms tend to concentrate attention on a few blockbusters.
It has a positive indirect effect on live performances, which remain the primary income source for most musicians.
In other words:
👉 piracy functions as a parallel distribution infrastructure, where the industry locks access.
Kerfuffle@YanK @fstateaudio Which studies? Spotify payout to artists is abysmal which is why I avoid it as an artist, but this sounds a lot like "pay artists with exposure," which is worse. Many artists don't perform live. Piracy websites don't feature discovery mechanisms, so visibility for lesser-known artists: how?
@kerfuffle @fstateaudio this is not “pay artists with exposure,” and the studies don’t say that either. They say piracy does not equal lost sales, and in some contexts acts as sampling and diffusion. That’s a descriptive claim, not a moral prescription.
The research doesn’t argue that piracy is a solution.
It argues that blaming piracy for the collapse of artist income was empirically wrong — and that the platform economy that replaced it turned out to be far more damaging.
@YanK @fstateaudio
"It is in particular
important to note that music consumption in physical format has until recently accounted for the
lion’s share of total music revenues. If piracy leads to substantial sales displacement of music in
physical format, then its effect on the overall music industry revenues may well still be negative."
The caveat of this research' conclusion is a reality now. Sales are mostly digital these days and piracy is likely to have a net negative effect.
"It is in particular
important to note that music consumption in physical format has until recently accounted for the
lion’s share of total music revenues. If piracy leads to substantial sales displacement of music in
physical format, then its effect on the overall music industry revenues may well still be negative."
The caveat of this research' conclusion is a reality now. Sales are mostly digital these days and piracy is likely to have a net negative effect.
@kerfuffle @fstateaudio Declining revenues don’t prove piracy caused the damage — they prove that the platform model that replaced physical sales redefined music’s value downward. Correlation isn’t causation, and the timing strongly points to platforms, not piracy.
This isn’t specific to music piracy — it’s a recurring pattern where disruptive distribution is first fought, then absorbed, then monetized by platforms. I expand on this dynamic in my article here:
https://yanklinnomme.fr/#article=quand-creer-devient-une-permission&lang=en
@YanK @fstateaudio
don't prove... it's in the research you just linked. This isn't an either-or problem. Spotify abuses artists, piracy abuses artists. Like you say in your article (which suffers a bleak false dichotomy): some platforms offer a useful alternative, until their owners abuse it for profit. But there are useful alternatives like Bandcamp and hopefully Qobuz where artists can be found and are properly compensated. Artists need fair alternatives to Spotify. Piracy isn't it.
don't prove... it's in the research you just linked. This isn't an either-or problem. Spotify abuses artists, piracy abuses artists. Like you say in your article (which suffers a bleak false dichotomy): some platforms offer a useful alternative, until their owners abuse it for profit. But there are useful alternatives like Bandcamp and hopefully Qobuz where artists can be found and are properly compensated. Artists need fair alternatives to Spotify. Piracy isn't it.
@kerfuffle @YanK "The research doesn’t argue that piracy is a solution.
It argues that blaming piracy for the collapse of artist income was empirically wrong — and that the platform economy that replaced it turned out to be far more damaging."
This is essentially the point I was trying to make.
Bandcamp might be a better alternative, but it's still a corporate entity concentrating the majority of profits/benefits at the top. Co-ops like @mirlo are a step in the right direction imo.
@kerfuffle @YanK @fstateaudio "word of mouth" the same way I discovered bands in the 80s and 90s, I already brought "nevermind" based on friends playing it before Smells like teen spirit got a single play on mtv.
@hashbangperl @kerfuffle @fstateaudio Yes, that's right, it's an alternative distribution channel, outside the listening bubbles of Spotify and the like.
Allanon 🇮🇹 
@YanK @fstateaudio I agree: that equation is false.
This is the same for cloned high priced products, if someone cannot afford a Prada product and he buy a clone, it's not lost money for Prada.
I'm not saying that cloning products is ok but that the equation is totally false.
With digital products is the same but since prices are lower there is the possibility that someone that downloaded pirated stuff could be interested and decide to buy the original.
This is the same for cloned high priced products, if someone cannot afford a Prada product and he buy a clone, it's not lost money for Prada.
I'm not saying that cloning products is ok but that the equation is totally false.
With digital products is the same but since prices are lower there is the possibility that someone that downloaded pirated stuff could be interested and decide to buy the original.
@allanon @fstateaudio I agree — what’s problematic with copying isn’t access per se, it’s the mercantile and sometimes harmful layer around it.
With physical goods, clones often imply:
- exploitative labor,
- unsafe materials,
- deception of the consumer,
- and real physical risk.
That’s a legitimate concern, and it’s why the analogy with luxury goods only goes so far.
@allanon With digital goods, those risks mostly disappear — but another one can appear:
extractive intermediaries, malware-ridden sites, monetization of piracy itself.
So the issue isn’t “copy vs original” in the abstract.
It’s who captures value, under what conditions, and at whose expense — creators and consumers.
That’s precisely why reducing everything to “copy = theft” misses the real problems.
@YanK Yes, that's it, pirated digital products are infected at 99% but I don't know how this practice is still in use.
My game library, composed by legit digital products (15%) & gifted games is around 760 titles (75%): who is going to risk to download malware with this legit offer around?
Maybe for music & movies this practice is still in use but, again, one person that download 100 movies does not mean 100 lost sells for the producer: it's a lie.
It's bad practice but not lost sells.
My game library, composed by legit digital products (15%) & gifted games is around 760 titles (75%): who is going to risk to download malware with this legit offer around?
Maybe for music & movies this practice is still in use but, again, one person that download 100 movies does not mean 100 lost sells for the producer: it's a lie.
It's bad practice but not lost sells.
Jezus Michał "Le Wzdych" (on)People most concerned about piracy were anyways the anti-piracy organizations. People who have it in their best interest for piracy to be perceived as a threat, because they're making money off that.
Then there's the rich scum who are profiteering from artists, and the less they give back, the more concerned they are.
Then the law enforcement who are simply looking to bully some kids.
And finally some gullible artists.
Darwin WoodkaSure because hearing a song a friend recorded would NEVER mean you might go buy the album or something, right? Like, why did they play those songs on the radio where you could hear them FOR FREE anyway?
@darwinwoodka @YanK If you look into the history, radio is really where the whole clusterfuck started, and only remained free because people worked to keep it that way. It helped that the general public consensus was that the airwaves weren't something that could be owned. But even then, it wasn't really free, it was just that the radio stations were paying the fees, and making their money in turn through advertising.
Santa Sponge Is Stationary🎅@fstateaudio I remember being given a record in 1982 that had "home taping is killing music" on it.
Which is of course why there has been no new music of any kind since 1983.
Maarten Pelgrim@fstateaudio I'd love to boost this at least twice.
@maartenpelgrim lol, cheers. :)
StoneBear 
@fstateaudio AND ARE STILL DOING THEM..
VoidZeroOne 
@fstateaudio but is it really musicians or is it music publishers that tell there artists (because they really own 'em) you want to get payed? Do this! Anyways the music industry lost their right to exist with the end of physical media.
@TheOneDoc I'm talking about things I've seen from other independent musicians, but I have little doubt that the environment you describe has seeped into people's minds, if that makes sense. The days of physical media were only better in the sense that listeners didn't have to pay what amounts to recurring rental fees and weren't serving so much as sources of data to be sold, but the industry has always been a system of exploitation.
Flor de Jambú 
@fstateaudio Que saudade de tocar, sentir o cheiro, ouvir… 🥹
McHollander | Celtic Folk Bard@fstateaudio If Zuckerberg isn't in jail for pirating millions of books for his LLM, I don't care. And speaking as a musician: the one who's stealing is spotify.
Anthony DavidThe rich seem to get away with stealing whatever they like from the rest of us.